John Galt:
I think that having no restrictions on weapon use can, in some cases, actually make a country safer. Who in their right mind would attack a nation who's got a gas that will make you eat your own face? However, once more people get the "Face Eating Gas" then you've got a problem and will then require rules to ease the minds of the civilians.

Really? No restrictions? So it's safer for the country if the government can use the gas on its own citizens if they're suspected of treason? Or on entire towns if they're suspected of harbouring terrorists? Or on anybody if they're opposed to the use of "Face Eating Gas"?

To expound on the idea of 'face eating gas', the case in point is that the use of FEG (face-eating gas) will invariably lead to the use of more FEG against you in a military situation. Thus utilising FEG is militarily pointless as any strategic gain caused by forcing combatants to eat their own faces is immediately nullified by the enemies use of FEG against you, causing similar losses and demoralisation in thy army.

Using FEG on civilians, however, Nuggo, is not a case of war. It is a case of entertainment (or genocide, depending on whose side your on.)

I'd say the big problem with the Geneva Convention is that if I'm a war-mongering army hell-bent on world domination in the style of the Nazis I wouldn't listen to what anyone says.

"Fire in the morning, fire at noon, fire at supper time."
"We'd be much obliged if you stopped killing us for no reason."
"No."
"It's against the Geneva Convention."
"Feh. You all burn the same."

Also, if someone could invent something called 'Face Eating Gas,' that would be just swell.

John Galt:
Well, if the medic had the gun pointed at me, I'd shoot too. Those philanthropists can be pretty assertive. Also, wouldn't a nuclear weapon kill at least one medic? I mean come on, the odds that any body of soldiers would gather without medical personnel are pretty slim.

I agree with Nietzche, the moment violence is implied in one-on-one combat, I don't care if you're a cancer orphan, I will end you. OR get ended. Either way's coo.

Necrohydra:

@j-e-f-f-e-r-s - You do know that the alternative to the U.S. bombing Japan was a land invasion of Japan, right? Which would have taken countless lives on both sides and dragged the war on for another year or two? I'm not saying bombing Japan twice was justified, but given the alternative, I can see why that decision was made.

i agree wholeheartedly with this man, if american troops had slaughtered their way through thousands of japanese civilians who were going to be thrown at them with makeshift weapons, had a grueling invasion, national devastation...

and then the U.S citizens found out they had a weapon that could have solved the entire thing in one fell swoop?

the american government would have been attacked twice as much as they were (and are) for the bomb.

Can we impose rules on our soldiers when they are in the thick of a fight? when the enemy is trying to forcefully send hot lead screaming through your flesh and kill you, shred your body and end your mind can we expect people to obey the rules set by some beaurocrat at a desk?

That's war, the rest is logistics, rules don't apply when you have just scythed open someone's abdomen with a bullet and sent their innards coiling to the ground.

as for love? survival of the fittest i say, if your in competition for a chick, then i id say its fair game to plant tentacle furry porn in his stuff and let her find it...

good times...

To the Medic killing thing: Why, when looking down your sniper scope at a medic you will make the choice to kill them. I could understand why you would try and kill them if they where fighting you but if they where a far distance away why kill them? All medics do is make your death a bit more comfortable, they don't really patch you up and send off on your merry way. Really all your doing is wasting a bullet and a life, not to mention the fact that you will be giving off your position.

Fire Daemon:
To the Medic killing thing: Why, when looking down your sniper scope at a medic you will make the choice to kill them. I could understand why you would try and kill them if they where fighting you but if they where a far distance away why kill them? All medics do is make your death a bit more comfortable, they don't really patch you up and send off on your merry way. Really all your doing is wasting a bullet and a life, not to mention the fact that you will be giving off your position.

because he just healed their Pyro and i'm down on kills this round.

Ultrajoe:

Fire Daemon:
To the Medic killing thing: Why, when looking down your sniper scope at a medic you will make the choice to kill them. I could understand why you would try and kill them if they where fighting you but if they where a far distance away why kill them? All medics do is make your death a bit more comfortable, they don't really patch you up and send off on your merry way. Really all your doing is wasting a bullet and a life, not to mention the fact that you will be giving off your position.

because he just healed their Pyro and i'm down on kills this round.

Yes but you need to remember, the blu team are humans too.

Fire Daemon:

Yes but you need to remember, the blu team are humans too.

not where i'm aiming

Nugoo:

John Galt:
I think that having no restrictions on weapon use can, in some cases, actually make a country safer. Who in their right mind would attack a nation who's got a gas that will make you eat your own face? However, once more people get the "Face Eating Gas" then you've got a problem and will then require rules to ease the minds of the civilians.

Really? No restrictions? So it's safer for the country if the government can use the gas on its own citizens if they're suspected of treason? Or on entire towns if they're suspected of harbouring terrorists? Or on anybody if they're opposed to the use of "Face Eating Gas"?

Again, I said safer, not better. There is a large difference between the two. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were perhaps some of the safest places on Earth, that is, criminals and dissenters were not tolerated. The only thing you had to worry about was the government.

John Galt:
Again, I said safer, not better. There is a large difference between the two. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were perhaps some of the safest places on Earth, that is, criminals and dissenters were not tolerated. The only thing you had to worry about was the government.

Nope, both governments had extensive criminal networks... organised crime just operated slightly more discreetly, and mention of them didn't make the state-controlled press so that the proles wouldn't worry themselves needlessly about people defying the power of the state. (Unless they were caught, of course; then footage of the arrests gets splashed all over everywhere to show the indomitable power of the state.)

Indeed, corruption in both governments was staggering from black marketeers making payoffs to avoid arrest.

-- Steve

There I go again not doing my research. Dangit, I hate it when I'm proven wrong. Then again, if the organized criminal groups operate discreetly, then there would be less of a chance for bystanders to be killed.

John Galt:
Again, I said safer, not better. There is a large difference between the two. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were perhaps some of the safest places on Earth, that is, criminals and dissenters were not tolerated. The only thing you had to worry about was the government.

Yeah, but how can it be one of the "safest places on the Earth" if the government is systematically killing off the population far quicker than the criminals, dissenters or terrorists would be anyway? At least the criminals are unlikely to round up your whole family or village to kill along with you.

Whiskyjakk:

Yeah, but how can it be one of the "safest places on the Earth" if the government is systematically killing off the population far quicker than the criminals, dissenters or terrorists would be anyway?

As long as you're not a dissident, you have no worries. There are no re-offenders for a start.

(only slightly joking)

I'd say the big problem with the Geneva Convention is that if I'm a war-mongering army hell-bent on world domination in the style of the Nazis I wouldn't listen to what anyone says.

Because then you've just upped the arms race and now the 'Good guys' can use FEG.

If Hiroshima was so effective, why wasn't Baghdad nuked? Oh yeah, the Geneva Convention.

It's an Arms Limitation Rule; any Dominating Army keeps their troops to the minimum possible weaponary to prevent notice of build up and/or counterstrikes.

Terrorists, on the other hand, have little to lose. You can't really threaten a Suicide Bomber with Death, but you can threaten annihilation of their Homeland.

Hence, M.A.D.

One more thing I'd like to add on medic killing:

So, your holed up in a building next to a window and an enemy officer appears to be laying down on the ground near a rather large wall. Now he looks to be a high-ranking officer and is surely commanding the soldiers who've got you by the throat and he's being attended by a medic. The only problem is the medic is obscuring your view and a clear shot is impossible. If it meant the survival of your group and the defeat of the enemy group, would you kill that medic and let the officer bleed to death, leaving his men leaderless and distracted? If that officer lives, he can easily coordinate a move on your building and thus kill or capture you. If you kill him, his soldiers will have second thoughts about going after you, thus extending the lives of your comrades. In this situation, I think the best move would be to kill the medic. It's unfortunate that he's in that position but there's no other choice for you.

John Galt:
One more thing I'd like to add on medic killing:

So, your holed up in a building next to a window and an enemy officer appears to be laying down on the ground near a rather large wall. Now he looks to be a high-ranking officer and is surely commanding the soldiers who've got you by the throat and he's being attended by a medic. The only problem is the medic is obscuring your view and a clear shot is impossible. If it meant the survival of your group and the defeat of the enemy group, would you kill that medic and let the officer bleed to death, leaving his men leaderless and distracted? If that officer lives, he can easily coordinate a move on your building and thus kill or capture you. If you kill him, his soldiers will have second thoughts about going after you, thus extending the lives of your comrades. In this situation, I think the best move would be to kill the medic. It's unfortunate that he's in that position but there's no other choice for you.

Why yes, I think I would. I know it's a failed philosophy but I go with utilitarianism when the consequences of an action are fairly clear.

John Galt:
One more thing I'd like to add on medic killing:

So, your holed up in a building next to a window and an enemy officer appears to be laying down on the ground near a rather large wall. Now he looks to be a high-ranking officer and is surely commanding the soldiers who've got you by the throat and he's being attended by a medic. The only problem is the medic is obscuring your view and a clear shot is impossible. If it meant the survival of your group and the defeat of the enemy group, would you kill that medic and let the officer bleed to death, leaving his men leaderless and distracted? If that officer lives, he can easily coordinate a move on your building and thus kill or capture you. If you kill him, his soldiers will have second thoughts about going after you, thus extending the lives of your comrades. In this situation, I think the best move would be to kill the medic. It's unfortunate that he's in that position but there's no other choice for you.

If you where able to see that he was in high command then you could kill him. Besides any medic who knew what to do would not be tending to someone in the middle of field/street/runway whatever.

John Galt:
One more thing I'd like to add on medic killing:

So, your holed up in a building next to a window and an enemy officer appears to be laying down on the ground near a rather large wall. Now he looks to be a high-ranking officer and is surely commanding the soldiers who've got you by the throat and he's being attended by a medic. The only problem is the medic is obscuring your view and a clear shot is impossible. If it meant the survival of your group and the defeat of the enemy group, would you kill that medic and let the officer bleed to death, leaving his men leaderless and distracted? If that officer lives, he can easily coordinate a move on your building and thus kill or capture you. If you kill him, his soldiers will have second thoughts about going after you, thus extending the lives of your comrades. In this situation, I think the best move would be to kill the medic. It's unfortunate that he's in that position but there's no other choice for you.

Bravo John Galt. You just shot a medic. Next, a Koinigstiger appears around the corner, and blows through the wall of the building your in with its 88mm gun. You are half-buried under the falling rubble, but the tank withdraws as your reinforcements come in (we'll assume for arguments sake theres a M36 in their somewhere). A medic hurries over to help you, but the BLAM! A sniper bullet blows through his head, and he collapses to the ground, stone dead, and you bleed to death. If you hadn't shot that german medic, the german sniper wouldn't have shot yours (most likely) and you would now be if not alive then at least inundated with morphine.

You see how the rules of war work? They aren't formal, but if you shoot their mdeics, they'll shoot yours, if they shell your civilian, you'll shell yours. Committing atrocities dosen't win wars- it just makes them more savage.

Fondant:

John Galt:
One more thing I'd like to add on medic killing:

So, your holed up in a building next to a window and an enemy officer appears to be laying down on the ground near a rather large wall. Now he looks to be a high-ranking officer and is surely commanding the soldiers who've got you by the throat and he's being attended by a medic. The only problem is the medic is obscuring your view and a clear shot is impossible. If it meant the survival of your group and the defeat of the enemy group, would you kill that medic and let the officer bleed to death, leaving his men leaderless and distracted? If that officer lives, he can easily coordinate a move on your building and thus kill or capture you. If you kill him, his soldiers will have second thoughts about going after you, thus extending the lives of your comrades. In this situation, I think the best move would be to kill the medic. It's unfortunate that he's in that position but there's no other choice for you.

Bravo John Galt. You just shot a medic. Next, a Koinigstiger appears around the corner, and blows through the wall of the building your in with its 88mm gun. You are half-buried under the falling rubble, but the tank withdraws as your reinforcements come in (we'll assume for arguments sake theres a M36 in their somewhere). A medic hurries over to help you, but the BLAM! A sniper bullet blows through his head, and he collapses to the ground, stone dead, and you bleed to death. If you hadn't shot that german medic, the german sniper wouldn't have shot yours (most likely) and you would now be if not alive then at least inundated with morphine.

You see how the rules of war work? They aren't formal, but if you shoot their mdeics, they'll shoot yours, if they shell your civilian, you'll shell yours. Committing atrocities dosen't win wars- it just makes them more savage.

And this is the other reasonable side of the argument. Don't cherrypick your examples unless you're sure the other guy won't find a ripe cherry for himself.

Wars are won by pushing the other side past they're own mental and physical breaking limit. That's it. Even if everyone person in the country in question was completely dedicated and willing to die for the cause, there is still a breaking point. Japan reached theirs with a couple of bombs. And Vietnam might have met theirs if we dropped a couple more. Case in point, a shorter war is a better war. And if it takes atrocities most people consider unbearable, so be it. Your not the soldier that had to perform them.

And restrictions don't win wars. For example, in the cold war, if neither side could have matched the others in terms of nuclear firepower, then one side would eventually fire.

Fondant:

Bravo John Galt. You just shot a medic. Next, a Koinigstiger appears around the corner, and blows through the wall of the building your in with its 88mm gun. You are half-buried under the falling rubble, but the tank withdraws as your reinforcements come in (we'll assume for arguments sake theres a M36 in their somewhere). A medic hurries over to help you, but the BLAM! A sniper bullet blows through his head, and he collapses to the ground, stone dead, and you bleed to death. If you hadn't shot that german medic, the german sniper wouldn't have shot yours (most likely) and you would now be if not alive then at least inundated with morphine.

However, a sniper in that position would be unable to act with full certainty (or any at all) that they would be shot and require a medic's assistance or whether or not the opposing sniper is in position or willing to kill the medic. The fact of the matter is that in a situation like that, the best possible payout would be to use unconventional means to survive. If you do shoot, then either they retreat or shoot back. If you don't shoot, then they will most definitely shoot you whether through a medic killing or conventional means.

Atrocities have the ability to win wars. They also have the ability to escalate them. You cannot disregard the fact that you might be able to quickly end a war with excessive force and shock the enemy into submission. However, this is a call that must be made using as much knowledge of the people you're attacking (or in the medic killer's case, whether or not there's a sniper or tank around the corner) as possible.

war crimes are only war crimes if you fail, if not, they are glorious victories.

summed up; hit hard enough and no-one complains.

I've formulated rules that I would hopefully use for general medic dilemmas. Besides circumstances in which killing the medic=killing the general, my two rules are:
Do medics on the opposing side, when given a no-risk opportunity to do so, deny aid to our wounded as well?
Are those medics frequently used as front-line soldiers as well?
Does the medic have an ubercharge?
If the answer to any of these is "yes" I say shoot 'em. They're clearly being used more for their battlefield than humanitarian purpose.

It would be better not to shoot medics because in your officer example, the officer isn't gonna be doing much ordering. he would be taken back to a field hospital and under go months of treatment and rehabilitation, medics can't just patch people up and sent them back into battle.
Also the amount of manpower and resources required to care for the wounded is quite large I would think.
Were as if the officer died they would just bury him would take like 15 minutes and then be back to kick your ass.

Good point there, I can't believe I didn't see that when coming up with the example.

Ultrajoe:
war crimes are only war crimes if you fail, if not, they are glorious victories.

summed up; hit hard enough and no-one complains.

I think I agree with what you're saying, but I think that only supports the idea that there should be laws to govern what is considered a war crime and what isn't. It's the same with any crime; it's only a crime if you get caught. Well, I might not speak for everyone, but for me, the chance that I might get caught and have to live with the consequences makes me reconsider whether or not I want to do it. In war, I think the chance of getting punished gives extra incentive to think about your choices and whether or not it's worth risking. That, and you know, the amount of bloodshed.

What starts war? If it's a disagreement, then regulations are good. There are many ways to solve disagreements, and a completely regulated war would be decisive without being as atrocious as an unregulated one. Example - Decide an entire war with a duel. Sounds dumb? If both sides agree to it and there is a foundation of respect for the institution of regulated war, then it is entirely feasible. I have read of wars in precolonial Africa that were more like highly regulated ceremonies, with few causualties or injuries. Why can't this work?
There is another instigator of war, however, which is desire for power. When one group desires another's resources/land/riches, they decide to take it from them. The group that lusts for power would not settle for a regulated war, because they want to get their way no matter what. I have no answer for how to stop this war.
Some of you may say that it is human nature to desire more power and more land, but I think this is more a mark of Modern Western society than of human nature. There are many examples of societies that did not embrace the "more is better" assumption - for example the precolonial west african countries I spoke of. Apparently, the tradition was that each person was expected to only grow as much food and be as succesful as their parents and ancestors, deep into the past. Without surplus, there is no expectation of continual growth, and without this expectation and resulting reality, you wouldn't find ideas like "lebensraum."